Can you tell us a little about your role at the Office for Students?
Around 2022, the Office for Students (OfS) was setting up a new unit focused on quality investigations, linked to the implementation of new conditions of registration. I became the first Principal Assessor, helping to establish the structures and lead some of the initial investigations. These were focused on the B conditions, academic experience, robustness of assessment, and so on, particularly where there were concerns about the quality of provision in specific subject areas.
I was involved in developing training and guidance for a wider pool of assessors. I enjoy working on new initiatives and helping shape things from the ground up, especially when they have the potential to positively impact the sector. I’m particularly interested in how we define and assess quality in higher education, and how we account for the diversity of institutions and contexts.
My priority was ensuring assessment teams operated appropriately, while also being transparent with institutions. Investigations can be anxiety-inducing, so it was important to communicate clearly that this wasn’t about catching individuals out, it was about examining systems and processes, and their impact on students. We focused on authentic staff and student voices, sometimes observing teaching, but mostly through conversations.
Can you walk us through a typical assessment process?
It usually started with data, identifying areas of potential risk. We’d request further information from the institution and prepare for site visits, focusing on key questions and stakeholders. The aim was to triangulate evidence: data, staff interviews, student feedback, policies, committee observations. You couldn’t rely on one source, you had to build a full picture. Sometimes the data pointed to issues that weren’t there, and sometimes it revealed real problems.
It was satisfying to uncover root causes and help institutions make positive changes. But we were careful not to overburden them, requests had to be purposeful. The goal was always improvement, not punishment.
What were some of the most important insights you gained?
The diversity of the sector is key. Quality assessors need open minds and a strong focus on student outcomes. Independence is also crucial, bringing subject expertise and practitioner insight to the role. Assessors need to recognise their own expertise and use it to evaluate fairly and constructively.
Did you always work within your own subject area?
Not always. Each team had at least one subject expert, but as Principal Assessor, I often chaired the group, similar to a validation panel setup.
How did your work with the OfS influence your practice at Sussex?
It sharpened my focus on impact, evidence, and outcomes. I became more questioning and reflective. Writing the reports was a challenge, balancing priorities and articulating issues clearly using data and expert knowledge. It’s like a more intensive version of external examining. It also deepened my appreciation for how scholarship informs practice. Seeing different institutional approaches and their effects on students was incredibly valuable for that.
What advice would you give to colleagues considering a similar role?
Be open to different structures of working and work collaboratively.
People skills are essential.
You also need an interest in regulatory frameworks and how they translate into practice. Understanding the interaction between high-level regulation and on-the-ground data and experience is key.
Most importantly, keep the student impact front and centre. Quality isn’t abstract, it affects real people and their outcomes.
Dr Verona Ni Drisceoil is a Reader in Legal Education and a member of the Education Team, currently leading on Assessment and Gen AI policy, at Sussex Law School. She is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA), Co-Convenor of the International Connecting Legal Education Network and a Judge of the OUP Law Teacher of the Year Award.
Introduction
In the Spring Term of 2025, I, along with my colleagues Jeanette Ashton and Jo Wilson, ‘walked with’ nine of our first-year students to better understand and explore what community, belonging and inclusion means for them in the everyday. In this blog post, I share the background of the ‘Walk with Me’ project, a bit about walking interviews and some of the preliminary findings from the project, in advance of a longer piece. I hope these findings will be useful as we all prepare for another academic year. The ‘Walk with Me’ project was supported by the Sussex Education and Innovation Fund.
Background
The start point for the ‘Walk with Me’ project came about from a place of discomfort with our commitments to community and belonging in higher education. Whilst the terms community, belonging and inclusion are commonplace in higher education (HE) policy and viewed as positive and required for an enhanced student experience, there is much less clarity, as I have previously noted, about what the terms really mean and look like for the everyday lived experience of students, and indeed staff, in HE. Drawing on the work of Gravett, Ajjawi and O’Shea, I argue that we need to challenge our conceptualisation of these terms as they relate to both students and staff and the perceived frame within which community and belonging sits in HE.
Set against the challenges presented by increased student numbers, post pandemic trauma, the cost-of-living crisis, low attendance and poor mental health, this project, utilising walking as a research method, set out to walk with students to help better understand community, belonging and inclusion in the everyday. This approach (walking with students 1-2-1, side by side), as opposed to more traditional surveys and student group interviews, hoped to shift the power imbalance somewhat and to provide for more meaningful and authentic opportunities for spontaneous and holistic conversation about self and being within what can often become rather abstract or superficial conversations about community and belonging in HE.
Why walking interviews?
Walking as a research method, often referred to as walking interviews or mobile ethnography, has gained popularity in qualitative research due to its unique benefits (See O’ Neill & Roberts, 2019). It has been used widely in geography and more recently in health studies, criminology, and education. As researchers, it was not an approach we were familiar with, but we all felt drawn to engaging in a research approach that felt deeper, and more relational (see Gravett, 2023). According to O’Neill & Roberts, walking interviews allow the researcher to engage with participants ‘on the move’ in a more natural and holistic way, thereby providing insights into daily lives and experiences. The act of walking, they write, ‘engages the senses: looking, hearing, the feeling of being touched by air, rain, or other elements of the environmental atmosphere, and contact with changing aromas’ (O’Neill & Roberts, 2019:16) On the elements, we certainly experienced them all – cold, rain, wind, and sunshine. We all agreed that if we were taking this approach again, we would give more thought to the timing of the year. So, something to factor in, if you are keen to utilise walking interviews! Other things to factor in include time commitments, recording devices and transcription. There are, of course, now several AI tools that can be used to transcribe audio recordings, but this may not be allowed within your ethical review so do explore in advance.
The unique benefits…
On the unique benefits that O’Neill & Roberts speak about, as researchers we felt a more meaningful connection with the participants through this research. The student participants also spoke positively about the experience; how they enjoyed the conversations and building a connection with us. For us, as we moved through the term, the interviews (but felt more like conversations, and that is the point) moved into deeper discussions on a range of community and belonging issues including accessibility and the lack of accessibility on campus (one of our participants is visually impaired), race, class, discrimination, faith, and physical spaces – and how all can impact belonging, and a sense of community. In some respects, the conversations reinforced much of what we knew but it’s quite different when a first-year student walking side by side shares their personal story and journey of what community, belonging, class, race and exclusion feels like in the everyday. That ‘you have to be selective about events you go to in welcome week because of cost’, that ‘I was worried about racism in this country before starting university’, or that ‘I sometimes feel more connected to my teacher than other students’.
Some preliminary findings…
As researchers, we all felt this project was different – it felt more meaningful and relational. The stories and voices of the project were powerful. There was space and time to hear the nuance and challenge our own biases and practice too. Belonging, and community, is not, as Ajjawi, Gravett and O’ Shea write, a homogeneous experience. In fact, belonging can be ‘political’ (see Yuval-Davis, 2006). It can be ableist (Nieminen & Pesonen, 2021). The stories of this project landed in a way that served as an important reminder to us as legal educators to be mindful of how our students, all with their own story and lived experience, are navigating through our law schools and campuses – and that for students not from the global majority, the challenge can be greater; that community, belonging and ‘inclusion’ events can be exclusionary, and reinforce barriers to connection and relationality. Who gets to belong?
Below, I highlight four preliminary findings from the project:
Many of our students value their faith; that it is part of belongingand it can help them through difficult periods of the academic year. By admission, we weren’t expecting this to come through as strongly as it did. When we talk to students about wellbeing, friendships, academic and personal challenges, recognise that faith might be a key part of a student’s identity and life and hold a space for that.
Students value meaningful connections with their teachers. It is probably fair to say that when we speak of community and belonging, we often focus on creating spaces ‘for’ students, rather than ‘with’. Many students value connection with their teachers as well.
Social and extra-curricular have a place in our efforts to build community and belonging but it is important to also focus on what happens in the classroom. Our default to the social and extra-curricular as sites of, and for, building community and belonging, and often inclusion, though understandable, can be problematic, and can lead to “feel good” visible performativity rather than meaningful interventions and attention for all students in the academic sphere. Moreover, the framing and over reliance on the social can be particularly problematic in a cost-of-living crisis when we know that many of our students are now commuting or forced to work 20 to 40 hours a week to pay rent and bills. Coming to campus for additional social, ‘community’ orientated (community for who?) events may no longer be feasible or a priority for many of our students.
Build an enabling environment. Teaching structures, timetables and physical environments matter in terms of how students experience and ‘feel’ community and belonging. Have you ever thought about how the timetable and/or layout of your classroom hinders or supports connection? Is there anything you can do to design a more meaningful learning experience for all students such as changing the layout of the room.
References
Ajjawi, R., Gravett, K., & O’Shea, S. (2023). The politics of student belonging: Identity and purpose. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 1-14.
Gravett, K., & Ajjawi, R. (2022). Belonging as situated practice. Studies in Higher Education, 47(7), 1386-1398.
Gravett, K. (2023). Relational pedagogies: Connections and mattering in higher education. Bloomsbury Academic.
Moore, I., & Ní Drisceoil, V. (2023). Wellbeing and transition to law school: The complexities of confidence, community, and belonging. In E. Jones & C. Strevens (Eds.), Wellbeing and transitions in law: Legal education and the legal profession (pp. 18-19). Palgrave Macmillan.
Ní Drisceoil, V. (2025). Critiquing commitments to community and belonging in today’s law school: who does the labour? The Law Teacher, 59(2), 181–199.
Nieminen, J., & Pesonen, H. (2021). Politicising inclusive learning environments: How to foster belonging and challenge ableism? Higher Education Research & Development, 41(6), 2020
O’Neill, M., & Roberts, B. (2019). Walking methods: Research on the move. Routledge.
Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Belonging and the politics of belonging. Patterns of Prejudice, 40(3), 197-211.
Reflections from Dr Xiangming Tao (Assistant Professor in Innovation & Project Management) and Josephine Van-Ess (Associate Professor in Management)
Dr Xiangming TaoJosephine Van-Ess
Can you briefly outline your project and its aims?
The Dissertation Navigator was designed to support postgraduate taught students through what is often the most challenging stage of their studies. Many students struggle with framing research questions, selecting research methods, and receiving consistent feedback from supervisors. At the same time, supervisors face pressures of large cohorts and varying practices. To address these challenges, we developed the MASTER Toolkit (Methods, Assessment, Support, Tools, Ethics, Resources) to standardise best practice. Together, these provide step-by-step guidance, templates, and frameworks that promote inclusive, fairness, independence, and timely feedback. The project aimed not only to improve supervision process and dissertation quality but also to foster inclusivity, confidence, and a stronger culture of research excellence across our postgraduate community.
Which funding source did you apply to, and why did you choose it?
We applied to the Education and Innovation Fund, which offers up to £5,000 for projects that transform teaching and learning at Sussex. The fund was a natural choice because of its focus on innovation, inclusivity, and student–staff co-creation. Dissertation support had been highlighted in the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) as an area needing improvement, so our project aligned closely with institutional priorities. The Fund gave us the flexibility to pilot new ideas such as digital toolkits and to demonstrate impact in a way that could later be scaled across programmes. It also provided visibility and recognition for teaching-focused projects, helping to ensure that postgraduate support received the attention it deserves alongside more established areas of the curriculum.
Can you describe the application process?
The application process was competitive but straightforward. We had to demonstrate the project’s rationale, expected outcomes, and alignment with the Learn to Transform strategy. To strengthen our bid, we drew on PTES survey data, feedback from MSc students, and reflections from supervisors to evidence the need for change. We also grounded the proposal in literature on postgraduate supervision and learning design. A key strength of the process was the requirement to think beyond immediate outcomes and consider sustainability and dissemination. This pushed us to frame the Dissertation Navigator not just as a one-off intervention, but as a scalable model that could be adopted more widely. The support from Educational Enhancement colleagues was invaluable in helping us refine our scope and make the project realistic within budget and timeframe.
3. Were there any challenges or barriers you encountered during the application process?
Our main challenge was balancing ambition with feasibility. Initial plans included a wide range of digital tools and cross-disciplinary training, but we needed to focus on deliverables that could be achieved within a modest budget and short timeline. Another challenge was evidencing need: while we were aware anecdotally of supervision inconsistencies, we had to support these claims with sector research and institutional survey data. Coordination was also demanding. Developing a project that involved multiple stakeholders, e.g. students, academic supervisors, success advisors, and administrators, required careful planning and compromise. Yet these very challenges helped sharpen the proposal, ensuring that the final project was focused, achievable, and relevant.
How did the project unfold once funding was secured? What impact did it have?
Funding allowed us to co-design the MASTER Toolkit with students and supervisors, hosted on Canvas, and across MSc programmes. The toolkit offered templates, explainer videos, and step-by-step resources. Students reported greater confidence in designing and managing research, and supervisors noted improved efficiency and fairness. One MSc Strategic Innovation Management student, supported through the Navigator, went on to secure a fully funded PhD scholarship at the University Liverpool School of Management. Students from other programs, such as the Entrepreneurship and Innovation MSc, also acknowledged the Dissertation Navigator’s impact:
“Dear Tommy, I wanted to thank you for your kind guidance and support during my dissertation journey…… Your support was invaluable throughout this challenging process, and I truly appreciate your assistance and the Dissertation Navigator.” - MSc Entrepreneurship and Innovation Student, 2024
The project was presented at the Higher Education Institutional Research (HEIR) Network Annual Conference 2024 and British Academy of Management (BAM) Management Knowledge and Education Teaching Practice Conference 2025, where it was praised as a scalable model.
What are your top three tips for colleagues looking to apply for funding for their own scholarship projects?
Ground your proposal in evidence and student voice. Use survey data, feedback, and literature to show the scale and urgency of the problem you are addressing.
Start small, think big. Design a focused pilot that can demonstrate quick wins, but with scalability built in from the start. Funders want to see both impact and sustainability.
Co-create with stakeholders. Engage students, colleagues, and support services early. This builds stronger projects and creates the buy-in needed for long-term change.
It was quite an organic process that began with a flipped learning workshop I facilitated, one of many, but this particular session had an energy to it. The discussions were really lively, and as the session concluded, several participants were like, “I wish we had more time to talk about this. Could we meet regularly?” So, we established a group dedicated to active learning. Although the initial focus was on flipped learning, it quickly became clear that the scope extended much further. This was around 2016–17, and as the group expanded, I sought opportunities to share leadership. Professor Wendy Garnham, whose passion and vision were evident from the outset, joined me in co-organising and developing the group.
Then something spontaneous happened. Wendy and I attended a conference at Anglia Ruskin University, where, at the close of the event, the organisers asked if anyone would host the next gathering. I just stood up and volunteered us. Wendy was surprised, we hadn’t got approval from Sussex, but I was confident it was the right step. That decision marked the beginning of a wider journey. From there, the network continued to grow, eventually becoming a global community with numerous satellite groups.
What motivated you to run that first workshop and volunteer to host the conference?
I’ve always felt strongly about making a difference in education. It’s one of the most transformative forces in the world. I’d read a lot of evidence showing that active learning is powerful, especially for making education more equitable and empowering marginalised groups. When I joined Sussex, I loved it, but the dominant teaching culture still felt quite traditional. I wanted to challenge that.
I was also inspired by the amazing people I met, Wendy, the Education Enhancement team, colleagues at Anglia Ruskin, and people like Andrew Middleton. The people I met introduced me to new ideas and helped me grow as an educator.
How has being part of the Active Learning Network benefited you as an educator?
It’s been transformative. Having a regular group of people who inspire you to keep learning, experimenting, and improving is invaluable. It’s helped me grow, stay motivated, and become more open-minded. The global nature of the network also broadens your perspective. You realise that education looks very different in other contexts, and that challenges you to rethink your own practices.
What impact has the network had on your teaching and the teaching of others?
A huge impact. Every time I plan or deliver a session, I draw on conversations and ideas from the network. It’s like having a richer palette to work with. I’ve seen colleagues get promoted, earn fellowships, and thrive in their careers thanks to the network. Personally, I received a National Teaching Fellowship a couple of years ago, and I wouldn’t have achieved that without the support and coaching from people like Wendy. I’ve also helped others with their Principal Fellowship applications, and we regularly support each other in that way.
One standout project was our collaborative book, 100 Ideas for Active Learning, with 100 chapters from 109 authors worldwide. It started as a Google Doc and grew organically. For many contributors, it was their first publication, and they felt proud to be part of it. It’s a practical, accessible resource that’s evidence-informed but not weighed down by academic jargon. We wanted it to be inclusive and collaborative. I don’t have a PhD, and being neurodivergent can be a barrier in traditional academic spaces. But we’ve built a community where people with all kinds of challenges can contribute meaningfully. It’s about creating the kind of empowering environment we want for our students, too.
What tips would you give to others considering setting up a network or community of practice?
Find your people. Even if you don’t feel like you fit into your institution’s culture, there are people out there who share your passion. Build routines and culture together through monthly meetings, shared documents and annual events. That’s how you create impact.
Share leadership. Distributed leadership is key, let go of control and empower others. The more you share, the more opportunities arise. No one can do everything alone, and generosity with leadership makes the whole initiative stronger.
Be brave and different, challenge the status quo. We faced resistance from senior academics, leadership, and other institutions. But if you believe in your vision and have a supportive group, you can push through. Sometimes you just have to stand up and say, “We’ll do it,” even if you’re not sure how yet.
Higher education can be tough, especially if you feel like you don’t fit in. The network has made it bearable, and even joyful, for many of us. It’s about solidarity, support, and making education better for everyone.
Dr Lorraine Smith: Associate Professor (Biochemistry)
Applying for Senior Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA) can feel like a daunting task. One that often gets pushed aside amid the daily demands of teaching, research and other demands of academic life. Dr Lorraine Smith (Associate Professor in Biochemistry), a colleague who successfully navigated the SFHEA process, gives us valuable insights into what the journey looks like, and how it can shape both personal and professional development.
Why did you apply for Senior Fellowship?
There were two main reasons I applied for Senior Fellowship. First, it was about career progression. When I joined, I only had Fellowship, and my colleague and friend encouraged me to pursue further qualifications.
Second, I realised I’d been given poor advice in a previous role. I was in a management position and should have applied then. When I contacted Advance HE, they confirmed that management experience was key, so I had to quickly reflect on my experience in that role to build my application from that.
What did you find most helpful during the application process?
The most helpful thing was setting aside dedicated time to work on the application without distractions. I couldn’t have done it during term time because my teaching schedule is so busy. Being on the education and scholarship track, I used the summer period and set clear deadlines. That made all the difference.
Were there any challenges with making the application?
Yes, absolutely. I found the writing style quite challenging. It’s a mix of reflective practice and academic referencing, and you also have to align everything with the framework. It felt like spinning lots of plates at once.
I started by jotting down my thoughts and shaping them into case studies, then did the reading to support them, keeping in mind which framework elements I was evidencing. The reflection came as I thought about how my practice impacted students and staff.
My application didn’t pass the first time, but the feedback was clear and constructive. I reached out to former colleagues to fill in the gaps, and that made all the difference.
I think we’re so used to being critical of ourselves that shouting about our strengths can feel really uncomfortable. I’m better at it now, but I still find it easier to spot what I could improve than to say, “I’m really good at this.”
Senior Fellowship is all about impact. Where you’ve been influential, where you’ve led, and how others have taken on board what you’ve done. That can be a challenge to engage with, but it’s essential to the process.
How has the process of applying for Senior Fellowship contributed to your development as an educator?
The process really made me reflect on my own practice and read more deeply into pedagogy and curriculum design, which was incredibly helpful. During term time, there’s so much going on that reflection often gets pushed aside.
I also learned a lot about myself as a manager. I’m very much a doer, and I hadn’t really considered my strategies for managing staff or modules. The application gave me space to think about why those approaches work, why I’ve had good feedback, and how I adapt to individuals to work collaboratively and avoid conflict.
Has achieving Senior Fellowship had an impact on your colleagues or the teaching culture that you work in?
Yes, I think it has. I’m now always up for discussing pedagogy with colleagues, and we have a really collegiate way of working in our department. We collaborate well and socialise too, which I think the students notice. We regularly come together to talk about how to approach modules, and there’s a very open attitude to teaching.
It’s also given me more confidence in sharing good practice. One example is our recent curriculum redesign, where around ten faculty members collaborated on the design and delivery. I felt really proud of that. It was a genuinely collective effort to make the new module the best it could be.
Three top tips for undertaking the Senior Fellowship application
Lorraine offered three practical tips:
Start gathering evidence early. Save emails, feedback, and reflections that demonstrate your impact.
Keep a diary of good practice. Jot down projects or moments that might become case studies later.
Set SMART targets. Be realistic about what you can achieve and break the application into manageable chunks.
And perhaps most importantly be kind to yourself. Progress may be slow, and life will inevitably get in the way, but this is part of your career development and deserves your attention.
For anyone considering Senior Fellowship, Lorraine’s experience offers both practical guidance and inspiration. It’s not just about ticking boxes. It’s about recognising the value of your work and sharing it with others. The University of Sussex supports SFHEA applications. For further information, please see our web guidance.
Conversations around teaching rarely happen beyond formal training opportunities that often take place early on in our careers. After this, and especially during term-time, space for talking in our busy working lives is often limited. Incidental corridor chats are seen to generate a collaborative and positive working culture and, for some, were mourned during the pandemic and its aftermath. Indeed, post-COVID (or maybe this was always the case?), we rarely have time to talk to our colleagues about anything at all. When it comes to teaching, who do we approach when things go well, or not so well? Who is talking? Who is listening? And who cares? This was the premise for our project, drawing colleagues together across the then newly formed Faculty of Social Sciences, to talk about how we facilitate conversations about teaching, and our wider working lives, to enhance a sense of community and belonging for staff.
The conversation theme was inspired by Jarvis and Clark (2020) whose work emphasises how the informality of a conversation about teaching flattens power relations and allows people to make meaning together without the intensity of an agenda or outcome. They position this work in contrast to formal teaching observations with their traces of surveillance, performance and measurement. Too often we rely on these individualised encounters to ‘develop’ teachers, where in fact, authentic conversations might more meaningfully transform teaching, where colleagues hear something, share together and be inspired by each other in the everyday. This reflects Zeldin (1998, p.14) who notes that: ‘when minds meet they don’t just exchange facts; they transform them, draw implications from them, engage in new trains of thought. A conversation doesn’t just reshuffle the cards; it creates new cards.
With the provocation to encourage transformation through talking together, Emily, Suda and Verona set up an initial launch event for all the faculty to generate some initial conversations about teaching. The questions and topics that emerged from this focused on the following questions.
Why is community and belonging important for diverse academic flourishing?
How and where is community and belonging created and developed?
How might the labour of community and belonging work become visible, valued and rewarded?
The 12 colleagues who attended were afterwards put in cross-faculty threes and connected by email, with suggestions that they meet again to continue these conversations. As project leads, we were deliberately hands-off at this point, as the purpose of this project is to see if and how these conversations form organically.
A couple of months later, 5 of us met to blog together for the day, about our response to the questions, along with other themes that came up along the way. What we share in this blog collection is the story of our collaboration conversations.
In Jeanette and Fiona’s blog, they talk about what we can learn from student collaborations, which are often and rightly prioritised in the work of higher education.
In Suda and May’s blog they write about the value of time and space to slow down the academic pace and to generate community.
In Emily’s blog, she talks about the joy and challenges of teaching across different disciplines and how collaborations are structurally challenging.
What we learnt from this project is the ethics and timeliness of the conversation format, as a collegiate response to the complex and evolving challenges facing the sector, our students and ourselves as teachers. We all relished time to talk and think about the uncertain, the tricky, the everyday, the thorny, the unequal, the caring and uncaring practices – all of this important ‘stuff’ that sustains us as teachers but has no space in our working lives. We also did not only talk about teaching but about other collaborations that we value.
Our recommendation is that teaching (and other) collaborations should be exploratory and conversational rather than only a tool for appraisal, What we are seeking is regular open and meaningful dialogue about teaching and academic working lives that is not ‘done to academics at the behest of institutional leaders’ but conversations ‘with or among colleagues, characterized by mutual respect, reciprocity, and the sharing of values and practices’ (Pleschová et al, 2021:201).
References
Jarvis, J., & Clark, K. (2020). Conversations to Change Teaching. (1st ed.) (Critical Practice in Higher Education). Critical Publishing Ltd.
Pleschová, G., Roxå, T., Thomson, K. E., & Felten, P. (2021). Conversations that make meaningful change in teaching, teachers, and academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 201–209.
Read the blog collection on Conversations on Teaching for Community and Belonging
Across the faculty of social sciences, many of us share research interests, professional expertise and academic knowledge that shape the topics we teach. When we met to collaborate on this project, for example, we found most of us teach about issues related to education, social justice, and globalisation. Yet we rarely teach outside the confines of our disciplines and departments. And where we do, it is through favours and friendships, rather than anything structurally organised. Our compartmentalised teaching arrangements often produce a culture that can work against collaboration.
A couple of years ago, Jeanette and I met through a shared interest in education for those of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller heritages. This was an area I research, and Jeanette had just started a community legal education initiative, Street Law, in partnership with the community organisation Friends, Families and Travellers. She asked me whether I’d talk to her students about teaching. Of course, I’d love to. I liked her. I liked the project. It was my area of expertise. Why not?
I’ve since done this a couple of times and get a huge amount from teaching Law students who I normally would never get to meet. Thinking about their contexts, disciplines and experiences and translating my pedagogical knowledge to them is also a useful exercise in understanding what and why I prioritise as an educator. But it isn’t in my workload. I don’t have to and am not, directly ‘rewarded’, in the very narrow sense of my own time. Jeanette confesses in our collaboration project that she feels guilty about asking me. But we work in the same university and now in the same faculty. Why shouldn’t we teach across these artificial academic boundaries?
This raises questions about how much of academic life might be sustained by these sorts of favours. It reminds me of the complicated emotions of gift-giving, where the receiver bestows something with surrounding norms of exchange and appreciation. On the one hand, forging positive relationships and having reciprocal practices of care are important ways to navigate academic work and its pressures (Frossard and Jeursen, 2019). Doing this cross-faculty teaching was joyful and enriching – a ‘gift’ to me as well as Jeanette. Also, an academy where we only did what was in our job description would surely fall apart!
But, on the other hand, these practices lead to under-recognition of labour or overwork. Academia has long been organised into silos – whether departments or modules – producing a sort of bento-box style organisation rather than a rich, interdisciplinary tasty stew. It is only when trying to foster collaboration through teaching across departments that we notice how the structures and cultures produce or preclude the kinds of interdisciplinary work we may find personally enriching.
In reflecting on this experience, what becomes clear is the tension between the joy and enrichment of interdisciplinary collaboration and the structural barriers that make such collaboration exceptional rather than expected. While cross-faculty teaching can feel like a ‘gift’—personally fulfilling and intellectually stimulating—it also reveals the fragility of a system that relies on goodwill rather than institutional support. When collaboration is sustained through favours rather than formal recognition, it risks becoming invisible labour, disproportionately carried by those with the capacity or inclination to give more than is required. If we want to foster truly interdisciplinary, socially engaged teaching that reflects our shared academic interests and values, we need to rethink how work is recognised, rewarded, and organised. Moving beyond the bento-box model of academic life will mean embracing new structures that not only encourage, but also sustain, collaboration across boundaries.
Frossard, C., & Jeursen, T. (2019). Friends and Favours: Friendship as Care at the ‘More-Than-Neoliberal’ University. Etnofoor, 31(1), 113–126. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26727103
Since we’ve been teaching at Sussex, it’s felt like we’ve been in a state of perma-crisis: Strikes, pandemics, financial losses, have all contributed to a sense that we are on the brink of imminent disaster and we need to react quickly to avert an impending collapse. In this context a lot of pressure is put on as individual academics to do more and more with less and less. We need to teach more students and give them extra support even though there are fewer resources. We need to bring in more grants even though funding sources are shrinking, and publish more research in an increasingly narrowing field of “world leading” journals. Failure to do this, we are told, is an existential threat to the University and could result in more job losses, including our own. This sense of existential dread has meant that many of us feel like hamsters in a wheel – desperately scrambling from one task to the next in an attempt to just keep going and hope that eventually things will calm down. But the calm never seems to come, and in this highly individualised and reactionary wheel of toxic productivity, we seem to have lost a sense of community and belonging. In this blog we consider: Where in this endless cycle of work and crises is there space to think and reflect on why we’re doing this both as individuals and as a community? How can we break the vicious cycle of individualism and reaction and instead foster an environment where there is space to think and reflect in a collective and collaborative way to build the kind of University that we want?
By participating in the Conversations for Teaching for Community and Belonging, we have come to realise that there is a community of like-minded staff members who feel similarly , and that the answer to these questions begins with time and space. Time to step away from the hamster wheel of toxic productivity. Space to reflect on our individual identities and sense of purpose. Space to support and be supported by our colleagues. And from that space to foster a wider sense of community and belonging. This space requires us to have protected and meaningful time to just think and discuss with each other these bigger-picture and wider issues, which are not easily captured in bureaucratic processes. So much of the day-to-day running of the university relies on labours of caring and collegiality, and yet so much of this labour is hidden and not celebrated or even spoken about. We don’t want these spaces to be just one-off lip-service events or individualised awards, but rather collective spaces to talk through issues and share experiences with no expectation of a measurable output. By setting aside time for reflection, we argue we can move away from these feeling of constant reaction to immediate crises.
In the short time that we’ve had to engage in conversations with one another in this small project, we have been able to learn about what colleagues across faculties are doing in their teaching and research, and also share experiences that are point to issues of both concern and hope. We have been able to foster a sense of openness precisely because there is no sense that we are in competition for some sort of reward at the end, or that we have to produce something to demonstrate “value for money”. While we appreciate that much of what we do on the hamster-wheel of productivity is part of the job, we argue that it shouldn’t take up all the space, and should not be moving us away from other essential elements of our practice that require us to slow down to reflect, learn, collaborate, feel, care, read, and think.
When the new faculty structure at Sussex was first mentioned, discussed further at university-wide forums and School and Department meetings, our reaction was perhaps similar to many others. Whilst ‘indifferent’ might be too strong, our thinking was that this was a decision taken at a university leadership level which probably wouldn’t change much on the ground, aside from potential pooling of resources in a challenging higher education climate. We felt that any changes we needed to make would filter down in time through our Head of Department, but that, in short, it would remain ‘business as usual’ for the Law School. The ‘Conversations on Teaching for Community and Belonging’ initiative by Emily Danvers gave us an opportunity to explore how the new faculty structure might enable us to develop supportive relationships with colleagues outside of our department, what that might look like and how it may help us navigate challenges going forward post the voluntary leavers scheme.
In the last few years of her role as Deputy Director of Student Experience for LPS, Fiona developed a number of initiatives which were well-received by the student body. In this piece, we consider how we might draw from those initiatives to develop a faculty-wide space, but with a staff rather than student focus. That is not to say that building faculty wide student relationships is not important, but that, as Ni Drisceoil (2025) discusses in her critique of what student ‘belonging’ means and who does that work, staff community and belonging often takes a backseat. We conclude with some thoughts as to how we might move forward.
Community and belonging sessions for students in LPS – what did we do and why did we do it?
For the last couple of years in LPS, we have hosted a weekly breakfast or lunch event for students. We know that very many of the students find that the peers that they share their first year accommodation with end up being some of their closest friends – both at university and beyond. Friendships are also forged at departmental level but, in addition, we wanted to give the students an opportunity to come together, informally, and meet students from other departments in the school.
The get together would happen in the same room, the student common room, at the same time each week. As the Law school runs a two week timetable, it meant that different Law students would be available to attend, depending on whether it was an even week or an odd week. There was a small group of students from each department who would come every week, but we also had new faces at every get together – students who had heard about the event, or students who just happened to be in the common room when the event was happening.
When we asked the students about their motivation for attending, they gave a variety of different reasons. It was interesting to note that some of the students came to the event with the intention of seeking advice (perhaps about managing workload, or how to tackle their reading etc). The students found that having a casual conversation with a member of faculty whilst sharing some food was a preferable option to pursuing the more formal route of booking an office hour with an academic advisor whom they may know less well.
LPS Staff events: what can we learn?
In thinking about faculty-wide initiatives, it’s important to consider what is already happening in schools and departments and what we might learn from that. In LPS, we have online school forums, which are well-attended by both academic and professional services staff and a useful way to catch up on what’s happening at School level. In terms of more socially oriented events, we have regular ‘Coffee and Cake’ sessions, which are not well attended. Without undertaking a survey, we can’t provide reasons for this, but it may be that this being a Head of School initiative and booked into our calendars, gives the impression that this is a space where we might be able to socialise, but not share concerns and ask ‘silly’ questions. Time is of course also a factor, with events such as these falling down the priority list as we juggle competing responsibilities. An open plan office space for professional services staff is perhaps more conducive to those conversations than the academic offices, so it could be that a faculty wide space for academic staff would provide an opportunity to have those conversations, with the benefit of perspectives as to what happens elsewhere.
What might be possible in the new faculty? Some ideas:
· Twice monthly scheduled spaces at different times on different days, and starting on the half hour, to maximise faculty availability
· A small cross-faculty team to rotate the ‘host’ role and spread the word in the different departments. As discussed above, a friendly facilitator was pivotal to the success of the LPS student initiatives
· Keep organisation minimal, and be clear that this is not a leadership initiative
· Clear comms on the purpose of the space: to drop in, meet people, share ideas and concerns, ask questions in an informal space without needing to schedule a meeting
· No need for food! No need for themes!
· Don’t be discouraged if no one turns up. These things take time.
References and further reading
Ní Drisceoil, V. (2025): Critiquing commitments to community and belonging in today’s law school: who does the labour?, The Law Teacher, DOI: 10.1080/03069400.2025.2492444
For more on community and belonging for students see Moore, I. and Ní Drisceoil, V. ‘Wellbeing and transition to law school: the complexities of confidence, community, and belonging’ in Jones, E. and Strevens, C. (Eds.) Wellbeing and Transitions in Law: Legal Education and the Legal Profession (Palgrave Macmillan 2023).
Haruko Okamoto is an Education and Scholarship academic in the School of Life Sciences in the Faculty of Science Engineering & Medicine. She has a doctoral degree in Biology (Plant Physiology & Genetics) from Tokyo Metropolitan University and has worked with Agri tech industry in the UK supporting sustainable agriculture. She obtained a postgraduate qualification in teaching and learning for higher education in 2015 from the University of Southampton where she was a lecturer. She joined Sussex in 2018 and was promoted to Associate Professor in 2021.
Logo created by Lucy Thomas (Biology student) and Ruth Farrant (Geography student)
What we did
Haruko has been developing a phone app, PhotoFolia, with Dr John Anderson and Professor Daniel Osorio which uses images taken by smart phone camera to accurately estimate levels of green pigment chlorophyll in leaves which is one of the best indications of plant health. This function to accurately estimate chlorophyll in leaves allows users to research agricultural crops and organisms with chlorophyll grown under various environmental conditions over time. While growers and horticulturists have clear goals to analyse their subjects, this very function is available to any smart phone users including teenagers with inquisitive mind. We have been supporting 6th form students develop hypothesis to test environmental impact to pollutants on plants growing around them.
Clearly, our UG students are trained in their A-levels and are continuing to develop their research skills at Sussex. Here we provided UG and PGT students with our outreach opportunities together with the use of PhotoFolia to engage in STEM education. We were awarded the Education Innovation Fund in the academic year 2024/25 to build the STEM Ambassadors and volunteer network for students and staff.
Building the community
We met weekly throughout the academic year 2024/25. Regular members made a core group which decided on agenda, created outreach activities and materials and worked towards two outreach events, International Day of Women and Girls in Science in February 2025 and Open Day STEM student society outreach in June 2025. It was felt these regular weekly meetings were key to keeping the community work together. We met on a weekly basis for two hours during Autumn 2024 and Spring 2025. Here, we made meeting times and attendance flexible to accommodate students’ busy schedules.
We had three missions. We will create an inclusive community where students feel their value in the society. We advertised our meeting on our career’s Canvas page initially in October 2024 and the community grew to 60 UG/PGT/PGR students from across the Faculty of Science, Engineering, and Medicine as well as from the Faculty of Social Science over the following 9 months.
Creating communication lines
Another anecdotal take home here was the importance of keeping good communication. We cocreated a Canvas page for STEM volunteers/ambassadors with the participating students. This allowed students to own the community and to learn developing html-based web pages and to communicate with each other on Canvas.
Providing outreach opportunities
Daniel and I are members of the School of Life Sciences’ EDI committee and together we supported the EDI lead, Majid Hafezparast and the Athena Swan lead, George Kostakis in organising an event for the International Day of Women and Girls in Science 2025 on the 11th of February. Here are the list of activities created.
June Open Day STEM Student Society Outreach Event 7 June 2025
Supported students to deliver their outreach activity at a local 6th form college BHASVIC on 5 June 2025
Provided travel expenses for UG outreach
With the EI Fund, we supported student travel expenses to outreach. Travel expenses are less likely to impact student ability to participate in on campus outreach during the term time. However, Open day outreach events are scheduled on weekends and this can become a barrier for some students. On this assumption, we set aside funds to support students. The outcome of this is that we now have an estimate of cost to support students on weekend activities.
Why we did it
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Maths for STEM Ambassador scheme organised by STEM Learning is one of the perfect ways to integrate students’ passion for the STEM topics with skill sets such as timely communication, collaborative experience, community building, resourcefulness, initiative, and career preparedness. STEM Ambassador scheme is run entirely on volunteering by the members.
Volunteer experience is said to be valued by more than 80% of potential future employers (2016 Deloitte Impact Survey). While many of the doctoral training programmes and PGR students have access to funding for outreach travel support etc, there is currently no support for UG and PGT students.
Our main objective was to support UG/PGT students studying STEM subjects to develop STEM outreach skills, to build the STEM volunteering community, and to co-create STEM outreach opportunities on campus.
We supported UG/PGT students individually to connect with each other and to find the common interest in STEM outreach. We also connected with many STEM student societies develop hands-on activities along with exhibiting their findings to build STEM outreach.
Our approach to date is to signpost STEM volunteering opportunities to the Career’s Hub, which itself is a great way for our students to find what they want. Such activities can be led by academics in the School or in most cases students decide whether to join or not. Currently, there isn’t any resources nor support for organising Life Sciences students to become a STEM ambassador.
How It Went
Nearly half of the 60 student volunteers engaged in attending and participating in outreach activities and a quarter of the group are registered as STEM ambassadors with public profile since we started in October 2024. Four student societies, Women in STEM, Interdisciplinary Sciences, Neuroscience, and Wild at Sussex, contributed and created posters and outreach activities. We collaborated with many more professional services including the central open day team. Together, we were able to run an outreach event during the June Open Day in 2025.
Students nominated us for the Teaching Awards in 2025 clearly appreciated the support from us and the university.
Haruko advances STEM engagement at the University of Sussex through citizen science projects like PhotoFolia, ColourWorker and Shelltering Sussex while fostering an interdisciplinary community that champions innovative learning.
She hosts weekly open meetings that provide tailored guidance on topics ranging from JRA proposals to Student Society outreach events. These sessions ensure students’ ideas are heard and nurtured, empowering them to explore subjects beyond their curriculum and contributing to a more diverse and inclusive academic environment.
Beyond routine academic support, Haruko actively creates spaces for cross-disciplinary dialogue, encouraging students from non-STEM backgrounds to engage with scientific methods and concepts. This approach has broken down traditional barriers and sparked creative collaborations, with her group now including students from IDS, Global Studies, and Life Sciences…Haruko has boosted participation among groups less likely to engage with STEM, underscoring the relevance of science and celebrating campus diversity…Haruko Okamoto’s passion for collaborative learning and innovative education makes her and her team outstanding candidates for the award, as they continue to inspire and empower students.
Nomination endorsed by the student societies ‘Interdisciplinary Sciences Society’ and ‘Wild at Sussex’
Future Practice
The STEM volunteering group will continue to meet every week, expand our network, and continue contributing to building STEM outreach community at Sussex. We have plans to develop links with STEM student societies and the Student Union at Sussex to organise outreach events on campus.
Top tips
Meet regularly at the same time
Create outreach opportunities on campus where everyone feels safe
Be inclusive
Acknowledgements
We’d like to thank the funding and support we had for this Education and Innovation Award. We’d also like to thank the Head of School of Life Sciences and the Head of Department of Biochemistry and Biomedicine for their continued support.
Learning Matters provides a space for multiple and diverse forms of writing about teaching and learning at Sussex. We welcome contributions from staff as well as external collaborators. All submissions are assigned to a reviewer who will get in touch to discuss next steps. Find out more on our About page.
Please note that blog posts reflect the information and perspectives at the time of publication.
